[Goedjn]

On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 16:02:46 GMT, "Mortimer Schnerd, RN"
wrote:

Goedjn wrote:
On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 23:23:31 -0000, (Chris
"Full fathom five my father lies, of his bones are coral made. . ."
And the other one is furlong.


If the speed of sound is 750 miles per hour, please translate that into furlongs
per fortnight.


Screw that. It's 800 rods per "hail mary". Work it out from there.
(ok, about 48 million, depending on your ox. But if you're measuring
time in fortnights, you should probably be measuring distance in
leagues. )

[Joseph Meehan]

Goedjn wrote:
..
Pluralization of both with the 's' is correct.

Pluralization of both with the 's' is common.
I suppose whether it's correct depends on
whether there's any meaning for 'correct' beyond
'a lot of people do it that way'.

The American Heritage Dictionary 1992 shows it as fathoms. As with all
things in the English language as with the measurement system, it is open
for debate. :-)

--
Joseph Meehan

Dia duit

[Joshua Putnam]

In article ,
says...

"Full fathom five my father lies, of his bones are coral made. . ."

"Thy" father, not "my" father.

Anyway, that's 11 feet -- full fathom five would be one fathom and five
feet. The 1 would be full size, the 5 a superscript.

USGS (and previously USCGS) charts refer to the plural as fathoms, not
fathom, e.g. "Soundings in fathoms and feet, depth contours in fathoms."

--
is Joshua Putnam
http://www.phred.org/~josh/
Updated Bicycle Touring Books List:
http://www.phred.org/~josh/bike/tourbooks.html

[Keith Williams]

In article ,
says...
On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 11:25:51 -0400, Keith Williams
wrote:

In article ,
says...
On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 23:23:31 -0000, (Chris
Lewis) wrote:

According to Goedjn :

I really wish that were the case. Besides, why use a second rate
measurement system when we could go with a better one. inches, feet yards
rods miles (two kinds) and no easy conversions between any of them, while in

You forgot fathom, chains, furlong, leagues.

And to be offended that the plural for two of those is
the same as the singular.

There are 11 fathom in a surveyor's chain.

Not to mention 2.75 fathoms in a rod.

See? It's simple.

[I _think_ fathom and chain both pluralize with ".s"]

"Full fathom five my father lies, of his bones are coral made. . ."
And the other one is furlong.

Pluralization of both with the 's' is correct.

Pluralization of both with the 's' is common.
I suppose whether it's correct depends on
whether there's any meaning for 'correct' beyond
'a lot of people do it that way'.

Cite?

--
Keith

[Goedjn]

Pluralization of both with the 's' is correct.

Pluralization of both with the 's' is common.
I suppose whether it's correct depends on
whether there's any meaning for 'correct' beyond
'a lot of people do it that way'.

Cite?


Don't have a cite for fathom, it's just that I grew
up actually using the term, (and selling clams by the
peck and bushel, too) and none of them were ever
pluralized. Now that I think about, I'd have to say
that they were used more like adjectives than
nouns. Like "dozen". You can have dozens of
doghnuts, or you can have three dozen doghnuts.

I also multiplied by hours/day twice translating
furlongs per fortnight... and got a result 24 time
too big.


Who was it who said "if at first you don't succeed,
try, try again. Then give up, there's no sense in
being a damn fool about it"?

[Keith Williams]

In article ,
says...

Pluralization of both with the 's' is correct.

Pluralization of both with the 's' is common.
I suppose whether it's correct depends on
whether there's any meaning for 'correct' beyond
'a lot of people do it that way'.

Cite?


Don't have a cite for fathom, it's just that I grew
up actually using the term, (and selling clams by the
peck and bushel, too) and none of them were ever
pluralized. Now that I think about, I'd have to say
that they were used more like adjectives than
nouns. Like "dozen". You can have dozens of
doghnuts, or you can have three dozen doghnuts.

You can also have three bushels of corn. Or three pecks of peas.

I also multiplied by hours/day twice translating
furlongs per fortnight... and got a result 24 time
too big.

That happens, though I'd more likely slip a 60 or two in there. ;-)

Who was it who said "if at first you don't succeed,
try, try again. Then give up, there's no sense in
being a damn fool about it"?

If at first you don't succeed, get a bigger hammer.

--
Keith

[Joseph Meehan]

Keith Williams wrote:
In article ,
says...
On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 11:25:51 -0400, Keith Williams
wrote:

In article ,
says...
On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 23:23:31 -0000,
(Chris Lewis) wrote:

According to Goedjn :

I really wish that were the case. Besides, why use a
second rate measurement system when we could go with a better
one. inches, feet yards rods miles (two kinds) and no easy
conversions between any of them, while in

You forgot fathom, chains, furlong, leagues.

And to be offended that the plural for two of those is
the same as the singular.

There are 11 fathom in a surveyor's chain.

Not to mention 2.75 fathoms in a rod.

See? It's simple.

[I _think_ fathom and chain both pluralize with ".s"]

"Full fathom five my father lies, of his bones are coral made. . ."
And the other one is furlong.

Pluralization of both with the 's' is correct.

Pluralization of both with the 's' is common.
I suppose whether it's correct depends on
whether there's any meaning for 'correct' beyond
'a lot of people do it that way'.

Cite?

American Heritage Dictionary:

fath·om (f²th".m) n., pl. fathom or fath·oms. Abbr. fath, fath., fm., fth.
1. A unit of length equal to 6 feet (1.83 meters), used principally in the
measurement and specification of marine depths. --fath·om tr.v. fath·omed,
fath·om·ing, fath·oms. 1. To determine the depth of; sound. 2. To penetrate
to the meaning or nature of; comprehend. --fath"om·a·ble adj.


Note: it allows both forms with or without the "s"

--
Joseph Meehan

Dia duit

[Harry K]

dpb wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:
In article . com, "dpb" wrote:

...
But I have to mentally compute (by 5/8 for convenient reasonable
approximation) to find out I'm actually only about 62 miles away!

Naaaah. You're an hour away. Drive faster, you get there sooner; slower,
later. Who cares about the distance?
,,,

I guess you didn't take the smiley at face value???

But, strangely enough, some folks _do_ have a yen to know the
distance---from my experience I hypothesis it tends to the folks in
cities and areas which aren't amenable to straight-line navigation
(such as the Eastern US w/ all the windy hills, etc.) that simply
consider distances as time. Being in and from an area that is all laid
off in sections, we navigate by section line and distances are what is
the innate feeling. As my other post notes, it's a case of what one is
familiar with, nothing else...

Yep. Driving measures for me work best in miles as it is more easily
converted from miles to time. Thus if something is 350 miles away I
can pretty well instantly know that driving time will be 6-7 hours.
Used to be before interstates that one could take the distance, divide
by 50 (mph) and come remarkablyi close to the driving time. For me it
still works even on freeways as I don't push as hard as I used to.
Never have found anything using km that works as neatly. Best I can do
is a conversion back to miles and figure it that way although I rarely
bother. I do an annual trip in Canada.

Harry K

[Antediluvian]

On 11 Jul 2006 20:00:30 -0700, "Harry K"
wrote:

[...]

Good valid points about what your are used to. The changeover, if it
ever occurs, will not be painless of course but the pain won't last
long. In a few years everyone except a few would be wondering why they
fought it. England made the change and never looked back.

Australia went cold turkey years ago. Worked like a charm. New
generations never even heard of the old system.

U.S. made a timid attempt years ago to put BOTH on road signs, e.g. as
a "transition. Of course people only looked at the familar system,
so that went nowhere and was abandoned,

There would remain the problem of matching up metric with stuff built
under the English system but it can be done (England for one).

Antediluvian

[Michael Daly]

Harry K wrote:

Never have found anything using km that works as neatly. Best I can do
is a conversion back to miles and figure it that way although I rarely
bother. I do an annual trip in Canada.

Speed limits on highways in Canada are usually 100 kph*. If I have to drive 250
km, that takes 2.5 hours. If I need to go 75km, that will take three-quarters
of an hour. Man, that metric stuff is tough.

*Some areas allow 110 kph.

Mike

[Harry K]

Harry K wrote:
Michael Daly wrote:
Harry K wrote:

Never have found anything using km that works as neatly. Best I can do
is a conversion back to miles and figure it that way although I rarely
bother. I do an annual trip in Canada.

Speed limits on highways in Canada are usually 100 kph*. If I have to drive 250
km, that takes 2.5 hours. If I need to go 75km, that will take three-quarters
of an hour. Man, that metric stuff is tough.

*Some areas allow 110 kph.

Mike

The trips I make are from Osooyoos to Kamloops up the Okanogan and the
Coquihalla.

Speed limits are from 80 to 90 km on all 2 lane roads and 110 on the
cog. Traffic with very few exceptions sticks very close to them. The
annoying part is plugging along at 80 up the Okanogan behind someone
moveing 75 and almost impossible to pass.

Harry K

Ooops. After thinking about that I don't recall any 90 on 2 lane.
There are several stretches of 4-lane non-divided with 90. I haven't
made the trip in a couple years now due to wife's medical but we are
planning one this summer as soon as I get a passport in my hot little
hand.

Harry K

[Chris Lewis]

According to Harry K :

Ooops. After thinking about that I don't recall any 90 on 2 lane.
There are several stretches of 4-lane non-divided with 90. I haven't
made the trip in a couple years now due to wife's medical but we are
planning one this summer as soon as I get a passport in my hot little
hand.

At least in Ontario, 90km is very rare. 4xx series highways (4 or
more lanes) are defined as "divided" and are 100. All undivided
highways are 80. The only 90 I'm immediately aware of is the
undivided portions of the TransCanada (highway 17 in Ontario).

Alberta, of course, is slightly different, and I suspect BC is
too.

Passport? You still only need a birth certificate and government
photo-id (eg: driver's license). If you're a US or Canadian citizen
of course. And that's mainly to get back into the US.
--
Chris Lewis, Una confibula non set est
It's not just anyone who gets a Starship Cruiser class named after them.

[Michael Daly]

Chris Lewis wrote:

At least in Ontario, 90km is very rare.

??? Hwy 69 and a couple of others (6 south Hamilton? anyway, not too uncommon.)
vary between 80 and 90 on different sections. I think it depends on who the
locals voted for.

But even if you are at 90, it's still easy to figure out time - do the calcs as
for 100 and add 10%.

BTW - it isn't divided that determines whether it's 100 or less - it's
controlled access (though every controlled access hwy is divided). I think the
determinant in deciding between 80 and 90 is the frequency of access - more farm
roads = 80, fewer farm roads = 90.

Mike

[marson]

England made the change and never looked back.

then why do english, irish, and canadian carpenters still use english
tape measures?

[Keith Williams]

In article ,
says...
Keith Williams wrote:
In article ,
says...
On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 11:25:51 -0400, Keith Williams
wrote:

In article ,
says...
On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 23:23:31 -0000,
(Chris Lewis) wrote:

According to Goedjn :

I really wish that were the case. Besides, why use a
second rate measurement system when we could go with a better
one. inches, feet yards rods miles (two kinds) and no easy
conversions between any of them, while in

You forgot fathom, chains, furlong, leagues.

And to be offended that the plural for two of those is
the same as the singular.

There are 11 fathom in a surveyor's chain.

Not to mention 2.75 fathoms in a rod.

See? It's simple.

[I _think_ fathom and chain both pluralize with ".s"]

"Full fathom five my father lies, of his bones are coral made. . ."
And the other one is furlong.

Pluralization of both with the 's' is correct.

Pluralization of both with the 's' is common.
I suppose whether it's correct depends on
whether there's any meaning for 'correct' beyond
'a lot of people do it that way'.

Cite?

American Heritage Dictionary:

fath·om (f²th".m) n., pl. fathom or fath·oms. Abbr. fath, fath., fm.., fth.
1. A unit of length equal to 6 feet (1.83 meters), used principally in the
measurement and specification of marine depths. --fath·om tr.v. fath·omed,
fath·om·ing, fath·oms. 1. To determine the depth of; sound. 2. To penetrate
to the meaning or nature of; comprehend. --fath"om·a·ble adj.


Note: it allows both forms with or without the "s"


I'm not disputing that "fathom" may be accepted as plural, or peck,
bushel... I'm disputing that it is somehow favored over the 's'
form or more accurately "whether it's correct depends on whether
there's any meaning for 'correct' beyond 'a lot of people do it
that way'".

--
Keith

[Chris Lewis]

According to Michael Daly :
Chris Lewis wrote:

At least in Ontario, 90km is very rare.

??? Hwy 69 and a couple of others (6 south Hamilton? anyway, not too uncommon.)
vary between 80 and 90 on different sections. I think it depends on who the
locals voted for.

But even if you are at 90, it's still easy to figure out time - do the calcs as
for 100 and add 10%.

BTW - it isn't divided that determines whether it's 100 or less - it's
controlled access (though every controlled access hwy is divided). I think the
determinant in deciding between 80 and 90 is the frequency of access -
more farm roads = 80, fewer farm roads = 90.

With few exceptions (historical naming reasons, eg: the QEW), only
400-series highways are 100km/h, and 400-series is defined as
"controlled access", "divided" (eg: very wide medians or concrete
barriers), and likely 4 or more lanes.

90 is for important long-haul arteries out in the boonies with very
little access. Parts of 17, 69, 11, much of 115 and a small bit of
6 south (I was on it last week), for example, qualify. Much of the
DVP is 90km too (it'd normally qualify for 100km, but it is, I think,
too congested/narrow/curvy for MTO's taste at 100km).

[I suspect 115 will get upgraded to 100km once they finally finish
all the upgrades. May or may not be renamed to 4xx.]

80 or 90 km highways with "too much" access are hideously dangerous.
11 and 115 were both deathtraps until they started putting in
dividers, fences and "go the other way" bridges.

90 is sufficiently rare that it's a surprise to see it on a road
you've not been on for a while. 6 south surprised me ;-)
--
Chris Lewis, Una confibula non set est
It's not just anyone who gets a Starship Cruiser class named after them.

[Chris Lewis]

According to marson :

England made the change and never looked back.

then why do english, irish, and canadian carpenters still use english
tape measures?

Because they're easier to read than chinese ones. ;-)

Many of our tape measures are both english and metric.
--
Chris Lewis, Una confibula non set est
It's not just anyone who gets a Starship Cruiser class named after them.

[George]

Avery wrote:

What's the impediment except for guys like the OP.

All of your multinationals manufacture things for the rest of the
world in metric sizes. Your manufacturing industries would be much
more competitive if they turned over to the right side.


Somehow I think converting to metric wouldn't change anything. Its
pretty hard to compete with other countries where people are paid $3/day.


The only thing
that keeps imperial measurements going is a reasonably large domestic
market, and that will evaporate in the next few years in the face of
foriegn competition (China).

[z]

Noozer wrote:
Thanks for the info, and yeah, it's MM not cm....
So, are all metric bolts the same thread pitch since they dont list
it???

Nope... metrix bolts are measured in how far from thread to thread.

It will most likely be an M6x1x16, meaning 6mm in diameter, 1mm from thread
to thread and 16mm long.

It's so much easier to say I need a 1/4" bolt 1" long with 24 threads per
inch.

Naw...

M6x1x16 is just as easy as 1/4"x1 UNC

I prefer to describe thread pitch in furlongs per radian.